Let me begin by saying how much I love looking at the incredible photos taken by Hubble and company. Going back to my beginning days as a teen searching our city library for any books on astronomy, there were a few with some splendid (black and white) photos. These came from earth-based observatories such as the 100" Hale, 200" Mt. Palomar, and 40" Yerkes telescopes (the latter being the undisputed king of refractors). There were photos of the Andromeda Galaxy, the Pleiades, the Orion Nebula and perhaps a globular such as Messier 13 in Hercules. The Horsehead Nebula also featured prominently. Photos of Mars showed fuzzy detail, though nothing like we see today. Very few objects were available as photos, and libraries were the only place to find them.
Compare that to today, when I can easily find a photo of any NGC object from the comfort of my chair in front of my computer (or on my phone from just about anywhere). In colour. In ultraviolet. In x-ray. In infrared. In just about any colour of the spectrum one chooses. These mind-bending photos come not just from a few major observatories today. They come from space (the best ones) and from humble amateurs, sacrificing hours and hours to capture light from--Andromeda, the Pleiades, the Orion Nebula, M 13 in Hercules, the Horsehead Nebula..... We are now faced with so many images of certain "main" objects that we are heirs to an exceedingly embarrassing amount of richness.
It wouldn't be so bad for amateurs with small telescopes trying to introduce newbies to the hobby in the "olden days." Few people had actually seen good photos of deep sky objects. "It doesn't look like the pictures you've seen" is becoming my mantra these days, as everyone and their grandmother has come across a deep sky false colour photo buffet somewhere on the web. This often leads to a discussion of how the eye collects light, though it cannot store it like a camera, and how long an exposure some of those incredible photos require.
Which brings me to my (easily answered) dilemma: would you, dear reader, prefer to look at a photo of the Pleiades, or view it in, say, an RFT like the Edmund Astroscan? I have viewed that object dozens of times, and it still leaves me breathless. I have studied Messier 13 with a 4.5", and 8", and now a 12". I far prefer the eyepiece view to any of the best photos I have ever seen. Same with Albireo. Same with the Orion Nebula. Same with the faintest 14th magnitude galaxy I have ever seen with the 12". In fact, it's the same with the Grand Canyon. See the original in person, and don't just rely on the breathtaking photos. Convincing new observers of this is difficult, however. Sure, the lunar surface and Saturn will still drop their jaws. But Andromeda, as impressive and life-affirming as it is to me, is less impressive to newbies (how come I can't see all those stars that are supposed to be in there?). So what of fainter galaxies? Globular clusters impress, too, for a short while.
With the local climate I have to deal with, I couldn't do useful astro-photography anyway. Terrific clear nights during new moon are far too rare to spend keeping a camera on track for hours and hours. And besides, whatever deep sky object I would choose to photograph (it would have to be a bright one) has already been done to death. I am all for short exposures, and hope to be able to attach my camera soon to the eyepiece for better shots of the lunar surface, Jupiter, Saturn etc. But this need only take up a small portion of any observing night, when I prefer to be at the eyepiece, hunting down deep sky objects with a passion that I also try to bring to my music performances (I am a pianist).
So I have a love/hate relationship with modern astro-photography. Indispensable as it is to science and discovery, I can actually now get bored looking at certain (enhanced) images in magazines. It has become similar with landscape photography. Photoshop edits and enhancements have taken the natural world and turned it into something it isn't. I may not see the Ring Nebula in 4 or 5 different colours in my telescope, or the Grand Canyon in 85 shades of deep red if I actually visit. And that central star of the Ring is damned elusive in a 12" mirror, though pretty easy for a camera. But I prefer the view I get of Messier 57 in my eyepiece on a clear night to any photo image I have seen (except maybe Hubble...). And I would love to see your sketches from the eyepiece anytime! And maybe just a quick peek at your recent astro-photos. Clear skies.
Mapman Mike
No comments:
Post a Comment